SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J., R.C. Lahoti and S.N. Variava, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 1737 of 1996. D/d. 15.3.2000.

State of Rajasthan - Appellant

Versus

Shanker - Respondent

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 376 and 342 - Rape - Whether prosecutrix was a consenting party to the rape - State of nakedness in which both the prosecutrix and the respondent were found, having sexual intercourse on a cot, the opinion expressed by the High Court, that the prosecutrix, then aged about 20 years, was a consenting party appears to be highly logical and probable - Medical evidence that the prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse and her hymen admitted two fingers easily - No injuries on the person of the prosecutrix contrary to the statement of the prosecutrix that she had received injuries on her hands and on the hip - Prosecution failed to prove the case against the respondent beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Para 2]

ORDER

Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J. - The respondent was tried for offences under Sections 376 and 342 Indian Penal Code. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 and in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of 4 months. The appeal filed by the respondent in the High Court succeeded and the conviction and sentence were set aside vide judgment dated 15-11-1994. The State is in appeal by special leave.

2. We have carefully perused the judgment of the High Court. The High Court has correctly analysed the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 and in our opinion the observations of the High Court, that the occurrence did not take place in the manner suggested by the prosecution, are well supported by the evidence. The story given by the prosecutrix that when she was returning from the canal after taking her bath, the respondent caught hold of her and after taking her inside the shed committed forcible sexual intercourse with her is belied by the established circumstances of the case. During her cross-examination she admitted that she was completely naked when the accused committed rape on her and that at that time the accused also was naked. PW 1 in his deposition stated that he had found both the prosecutrix and the respondent having intercourse on the bed and that they were completely naked and he caught hold of both of them. He stated that the prosecutrix was not raising any cries. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances of the case and the state of nakedness in which both the prosecutrix and the respondent were found, having sexual intercourse on a cot, the opinion expressed by the High Court, that the prosecutrix, then aged about 20 years, was a consenting party appears to be highly logical and probable. According to the medical evidence given by PW 4, the prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse and her hymen admitted two fingers easily. Medical evidence also discloses that there were no injuries on the person of the prosecutrix contrary to the statement of the prosecutrix that she had received injuries on her hands and on the hip. Thus, the medical evidence also lends credence to the version that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and the respondent had not committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. The prosecution has, thus, failed to prove the case against the respondent beyond a reasonable doubt.

3. The material on record, thus, impels us not to interfere with the well-merited order of acquittal made by the High Court.

4. There is no merit in this appeal, which therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. The respondent is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.

Appeal dismissed.